Atezolizumab Plus Chemotherapy vs. Chemotherapy in Advanced or Metastatic Triple-Negative Breast Cancer: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

The cost-effectiveness of treatment for high-risk, early-stage, triple-negative breast cancer in Egypt: an analysis of neoadjuvant pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy followed by adjuvant single-agent pembrolizumab

OBJECTIVE

The cost-effectiveness of neoadjuvant pembrolizumab + chemotherapy followed by adjuvant pembrolizumab compared to neoadjuvant chemotherapy plus placebo followed by adjuvant placebo was assessed in high-risk, early-stage, triple-negative breast cancer patients from an Egyptian societal perspective over a lifetime horizon.

METHODS

A 4-state Markov cohort model was developed to compare the cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab + chemotherapy/pembrolizumab vs chemotherapy alone for the treatment of high-risk, early-stage, triple-negative breast cancer. The model simulated the clinical course of high-risk, early-stage, triple-negative breast cancer across four health states: event-free survival, locoregional recurrence, distant metastasis, and death. Clinical inputs for the simulation were derived from modeling of efficacy and safety data collected in the KEYNOTE-522 trial. Direct medical costs and indirect costs were reported in 2022 Egyptian pounds (EGP) and converted to US dollars ($). Probabilistic and deterministic sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the robustness of model results.

RESULTS

Compared with chemotherapy alone, pembrolizumab + chemotherapy/pembrolizumab led to expected gains of 2.92 life years and 2.25 quality-adjusted life years, respectively, while increasing overall treatment costs by EGP 491,695 ($102,436). Incremental costs per year gained were EGP 218,285 ($45,476) per quality-adjusted life year and EGP 168,223 ($35,046) per life year, both of which were lower than the 2022 Egyptian cost-effectiveness threshold of EGP 398,439 ($83,008). The findings of sensitivity analyses indicated that the model was robust across a range of inputs and assumptions.

CONCLUSIONS

In Egypt, pembrolizumab + chemotherapy/pembrolizumab is a cost-effective treatment for high-risk, early-stage, triple-negative breast cancer when considering health-related quality-of-life and years of life gained.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Pembrolizumab Plus Chemotherapy Compared with Chemotherapy as First-Line Treatment for Advanced PD-L1-Positive Triple-Negative Breast Cancer from a Japanese Healthcare Perspective

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Pembrolizumab has been approved for the immunotherapy of programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1)-positive triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) based on the KEYNOTE-355 trial. However, cost-effectiveness evidence is limited. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy compared with chemotherapy alone for patients with PD-L1-positive inoperable or metastatic TNBC from a Japanese healthcare perspective.

METHODS

The cost-effectiveness analysis was performed for pembrolizumab, of which the drug price was determined at 214,498 Japanese yen (JPY), or 1631 US dollars (USD) (1 USD = 131.5 JPY) for KEYTRUDA® (100 mg), using a partition survival model based on the KEYNOTE-355 trial subgroup analysis in Japan. The comparison was made using quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). One-way deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA), which evaluate the impact of parameter uncertainty, were performed to assess the robustness and calculate the acceptable probability, defined as the probability of the ICER being below the willingness-to-pay (WTP).

RESULTS

Pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy provided an additional 0.676 QALYs at an incremental cost of 8,503,072 JPY. The ICER for pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy compared with conventional chemotherapy was 12,577,178 JPY (95,644 USD) per QALY. The ICER per QALY was below the willingness-to-pay threshold of 15,000,000 JPY. PSAs revealed that the acceptable probability was 83.9% at 15,000,000 JPY.

CONCLUSIONS

The pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy is likely to be a cost-effective option compared with conventional chemotherapy for patients with PD-L1-positive inoperable or metastatic TNBC in a Japanese medical environment from a healthcare system.

Cost-utility analysis of olaparib assisted targeted therapy for BRCA mutation HER2-negative early breast cancer in China and in the United States

BACKGROUND

Olaparib, an inhibitor of poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP), has demonstrated promising outcomes in treating HER2-negative early-stage breast cancer with BRCA mutations. However, a comprehensive evaluation of its cost-effectiveness in the context of the United States and China has yet to be undertaken. This study seeks to fill this research void by performing a thorough cost-utility analysis.

METHODS

This investigation takes as its foundation the findings from the OlympiA trial. We obtained survival curves from this trial and used the Weibull distribution function to calculate transition probabilities. Relevant literature provided the necessary data on costs, utility values, and discount rates applicable to both the United States and China. We utilized TreeAge software to construct Markov models for each country, simulating the progression of early-stage breast cancer. These models underwent extensive examination through multi-way analysis, cost-utility analysis, Monte Carlo simulations, one-way and two-way sensitivity analyses, as well as probabilistic sensitivity analysis.

RESULTS

The cost-utility analysis of the Chinese Markov model revealed that the total expenditure for the Olaparib cohort amounted to 384,274.75 RMB, generating 6.41 QALYs. Conversely, the placebo group incurred a total cost of 60,264.10 RMB, resulting in 6.34 QALYs. The Incremental Cost-Utility Ratio (ICUR) between the two cohorts stood at 5,007,332.36 RMB/QALY, which is significantly higher than thrice the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per capita of China in 2022, set at 257,094 RMB. As for the U.S. model, the Olaparib group had a total expenditure of 245,604.01 USD, yielding 7.53 QALYs, while the placebo cohort had a total cost of 93,019.92 USD, generating 7.45 QALYs. The ICUR for the two groups was calculated at 1,891,974.19 USD/QALY, substantially surpassing the U.S. Willingness-To-Pay (WTP) threshold of 150,000 USD/QALY.

CONCLUSIONS

When evaluated in the context of healthcare economics in both China and the United States, the implementation of an Olaparib-based treatment strategy for early-stage HER2-negative breast cancer with BRCA mutations does not present a cost-effective solution in either nation.

Cost-effectiveness of Sacituzumab Govitecan versus Single-agent Chemotherapy for Patients with Metastatic Triple-Negative Breast Cancer in China

INTRODUCTION

Patients with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (mTNBC) have poor prognosis and survival outcomes. Sacituzumab govitecan was newly approved into Chinese market for mTNBC. However, whether its price matches the survival benefit still needs exploring. Here, this study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of sacituzumab govitecan versus chemotherapy in patients with mTNBC from the perspective of Chinese healthcare system.

METHODS

A partitioned survival model consisting of three discrete health states was constructed to assess the cost-effectiveness of sacituzumab govitecan versus single-agent chemotherapy. The key clinical data in the model were from the ASCENT trial. Costs and utility inputs were collected from published literatures. Life-years gained, quality adjusted life-years (QALYs), incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), incremental net health benefits, and incremental net monetary benefits were calculated between 2 treatment strategies. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to account for uncertainty and verify model robustness. Subgroup and cost-threshold analysis were also performed.

RESULTS

Sacituzumab govitecan provided an additional 0.25 QALYs and an incremental cost of $ 81,778.61 compared with chemotherapy, which was associated with an ICER of $ 323,603.84/QALY. One-way sensitivity analysis revealed that the model was most sensitive to the cost of sacituzumab govitecan, weight, and utility of progression-free survival. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicated that the probability of sacituzumab govitecan being cost-effective was 0%. Considering a willingness-to-pay (WTP) of 3 times GDP, the maximum cost of sacituzumab govitecan that would make it cost-effective was $155.65 per unit (180 mg).

CONCLUSIONS

Sacituzumab govitecan was not cost-effective for patients with mTNBC compared with chemotherapy at the commonly adopted WTP threshold of 3 times GDP per capita per QALY in China.

Toripalimab plus chemotherapy in the treatment of metastatic triple-negative breast cancer: a cost-effectiveness analysis

Objective

This study focuses on assessing the cost-effectiveness of incorporating toripalimab alongside chemotherapy for the treatment of patients diagnosed with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system.

Methods

A partitioned survival model was constructed to simulate the costs and health outcomes over the lifetime of patients with mTNBC. Clinical data regarding overall survival, progression-free survival, and treatment-related adverse events were derived from the TORCHLIGHT clinical trials. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were calculated based on the gains in quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). The willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold was defined as $39,855.79 per QALY. Additionally, sensitivity analyses were conducted to examine the robustness of the model.

Results

The total cost incurred by the group receiving toripalimab was $38,040.62, while the placebo plus chemotherapy was $26,102.07. The utilization of the toripalimab regimen resulted in an increase of 0.74 QALYs and an incremental cost of $11,938.55 compared to the placebo plus chemotherapy group. The ICER was $16,133.18/QALY, indicating that toripalimab plus chemotherapy is a cost-effective strategy according to the WTP threshold. Sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of the results.

Conclusion

This study suggests that the addition of toripalimab to chemotherapy for the treatment of mTNBC is a cost-effective strategy. The findings provide valuable evidence to guide decision-making regarding treatment selection for patients with mTNBC in China.

Cost-Effectiveness of Treatment Optimisation with Biomarkers for Immunotherapy in Solid Tumours: A Systematic Review

This study investigated the health economic evaluations of predictive biomarker testing in solid tumours treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). Searching PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science from June 2010 to February 2022, 58 relevant articles were reviewed out of the 730 screened. The focus was predominantly on non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) (65%) and other solid tumours (40%). Among the NSCLC studies, 21 out of 35 demonstrated cost-effectiveness, notably for pembrolizumab as first-line treatment when preceded by PD-L1 assessment, cost-effective at a threshold of $100,000/QALY compared to the standard of care. However, for bladder, cervical, and triple-negative breast cancers (TNBCs), no economic evaluations met the affordability threshold of $100,000/QALY. Overall, the review highlights a certain degree of uncertainty about the cost-effectiveness of ICI. In particular, we found PD-L1 expression associated with ICI treatment to be a cost-effective strategy, particularly in NSCLC, urothelial, and renal cell carcinoma. The findings suggest the potential value of predictive biomarker testing, specifically with pembrolizumab in NSCLC, while indicating challenges in achieving cost-effectiveness for certain other solid tumours.

Pembrolizumab alone or in combination with chemotherapy versus chemotherapy for advanced gastric cancer: A cost-effectiveness analysis

PURPOSE

The KEYNOTE-062 trial demonstrated the efficacy and safety of pembrolizumab for advanced gastric cancer (GC). The current study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab alone or in combination with chemotherapy versus chemotherapy for advanced GC from the perspective of the United States and China. And the results will provide evidence and data support for more drug selection-related decisions and research in the future.

METHODS

A partitioned survival approach with three states was created for treatment of advanced GC. The survival data were derived from KEYNOTE-062 trial and the individual patient data were generated by a specific algorithm. We fitted 21 survival functions to each treatment arm and selected the most suitable distribution type for each one. Direct costs and utility values were collected from the published, available database. Cost, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-utility ratios (ICURs) were considered as the primary measure outcomes. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the reliability of the analyses.

RESULTS

In the base-case analysis of combined positive score (CPS) ≥1 patients, the ICUR of pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy in American and Chinese setting is $345,209/QALY and $186,802.6/QALY, respectively. And the ICUR of pembrolizumab versus chemotherapy is $473,650/QALY and $377,753/QALY in the context of the US and China, respectively. For CPS≥10 patients, the ICUR of pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy in American and Chinese setting is $483,742/QALY and $262,965/QALY, respectively. And that of pembrolizumab versus chemotherapy is $96,550/QALY and $67,896/QALY in the context of the US and China.

CONCLUSION

Compared with chemotherapy, either pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy or pembrolizumab monotherapy is not regarded as a cost-effective strategy for patients with CPS≥1, advanced gastric cancer in the current American and Chinese setting. But pembrolizumab monotherapy for CPS≥10 patients would become a cost-effective option in the American setting.

Atezolizumab plus platinum-based chemotherapy as first-line therapy for metastatic urothelial cancer: A cost-effectiveness analysis

Purpose: According to the IMvigor130 trial, adding atezolizumab to platinum-based chemotherapy was effective in the treatment of metastatic urothelial cancer (mUC). Based on the perspective of the United States and China, the current study evaluated cost-effectiveness of atezolizumab plus chemotherapy for mUC patients in the first-line setting.

Methods: A partitioned survival model was adopted for mUC patients. The survival data were derived from the IMvigor130 trial. Direct cost values were collected from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), Chinese Drug Bidding Database, and published literatures. The utility and toxicity data were gathered from related research studies and IMvigor130 trial. The incremental cost–utility ratios (ICURs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated and analyzed. Scenario analyses and sensitivity analyses were performed to observe the outputs and uncertainties.

Results: The base-case analysis showed that the ICUR of atezolizumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy in American and Chinese settings is $ 737,371 /QALY and $ 385,384 /QALY, respectively. One-way sensitivity analyses showed that the ICUR ranged from $ 555,372/QALY to $ 828,205/QALY for the United States. Also, the range was from $ 303,099/QALY to $ 433,849/QALY in the Chinese setting. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed the likelihood that atezolizumab plus chemotherapy becoming the preferred strategy was a little low even if the price reduction strategy was applied.

Conclusion: Adding atezolizumab to chemotherapy improved survival time, but it is not a cost-saving option compared to chemotherapy for metastatic urothelial cancer patients in the American and Chinese settings.